NFSA

[Local Fisherman]

Firstly let me say that I am not and donot want the NFSA, SACN or BASS representing me as RSA at national level. I have not authorised you to represent me and nor do I wish you to.

 

The reason: Many moons ago the SWFSA tried to unite the sea angling organisations and federations at an event held in Birmingham over an entire weekend. All organisations and federations agreed to the umbrella body being formed, but because the NFSA greadily wanted total control, and the NFSA would not give any voting rights to other groups, the umbrella group collasped.

 

Now the NFSA wants to go down this avenue again. So I will say to them "Only if each group has a vote, otherwise forget it"

 

Sea Anglings biggest problem - Groups will not unite and fight as one - why? Because the NFSA wants totaL CONTROL.

 

[Leon Roskilly]

There is a national angling body, of which the NFSA is a member and which other federations that have an agenda of national unity can join.

 

See: http://www.anglingsites.com/saa/politicsinfo/structures.htm

[Sharkbyte]

The reason: Many moons ago the SWFSA tried to unite the sea angling organisations and federations at an event held in Birmingham over an entire weekend. All organisations and federations agreed to the umbrella body being formed, but because the NFSA greadily wanted total control, and the NFSA would not give any voting rights to other groups, the umbrella group collasped

 

Thank god it did collapse when you consider the SWFSA's response to the BMP consultation. Their broadside on the proposal was without question the most damaging response to have eminated from RSA's.

 

I do not agree on everything the NFSA does, but in this instance any alleged refusal of voting rights is now considered FULLY justified!

 

 

 

 

The SWFSA's response even warranted special mention in the BMP's summary of responses.

 

13.Views were highly polarised with strong sectoral support. Generally the

commercial fishing sector supported option 1 (do nothing) and the angling

sector supported option 2 (an increase in the MLS for bass to 45cm),

although there were some key stakeholder exceptions. For example, the

South West Federation of Sea Anglers, which states that it represents 25

clubs and 2,500 members, proposed that the MLS remain the same (noting

that scientific evidence suggests bass stock are healthy and reporting that

“more double figure bass was landed by its members in 2005 than in the

previous seven years..”). If the measures were to go ahead, the Federation

suggested incremental increases to minimise the impact on the commercial

sector and that the measures should be EU wide.

[wurzel]

Thank god it did collapse when you consider the SWFSA's response to the BMP consultation. Their broadside on the proposal was without question the most damaging response to have eminated from RSA's.

 

I do not agree on everything the NFSA does, but in this instance any alleged refusal of voting rights is now considered FULLY justified!

The SWFSA's response even warranted special mention in the BMP's summary of responses.

 

13.Views were highly polarised with strong sectoral support. Generally the

commercial fishing sector supported option 1 (do nothing) and the angling

sector supported option 2 (an increase in the MLS for bass to 45cm),

although there were some key stakeholder exceptions. For example, the

South West Federation of Sea Anglers, which states that it represents 25

clubs and 2,500 members, proposed that the MLS remain the same (noting

that scientific evidence suggests bass stock are healthy and reporting that

“more double figure bass was landed by its members in 2005 than in the

previous seven years..”). If the measures were to go ahead, the Federation

suggested incremental increases to minimise the impact on the commercial

sector and that the measures should be EU wide.

 

Hello Sharkbyte

 

It seems to me that the SWFSA response is fact not spin like most RSA responses.

[Ken Davison South Wales]

Hello Sharkbyte

 

It seems to me that the SWFSA response is fact not spin like most RSA responses.

 

Or maybe sour grapes

 

I wonder how many of their members supported their claim

 

I also wonder how many still want to be members